This football season get a hand from Betfair's popular BetBuilder and easily add our fan favourite football selections to your bet slip in just one tap.

And you can get a completely free £2 betBuilder on any Premier League game this weekend.

Now that's handy.

Betfair.

Max1 per customer minimum combined odds of 1.5, opt in required, T-Sync's apply, 18 plus B gamble away to org.

What you're about to listen to may include some potty talk. Then again, it may not. I hope it does though.

Tuesday, November 12, 2019 from Slate, it's the gist I'm Mike Pasca.

Go slow, quid pro quo. Dems term quid pro quo a no-no.

What's that, Mike? No, it's not a stroke thrusting monoselabity upon me rather the idea as expressed by Craig Melvin on MSNBC.

Today, an agree to by his guest former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance, the idea that quid pro quo isn't the best term to describe the president's actions.

We've heard the Democrats are going to perhaps stop using the phrase quid pro quo and instead start using words like bribery, like extortion.

How much of a difference does that make in weaving this narrative that you just mentioned?

Quid pro quo, that's a lawyers term. Every time the people at home hear someone say quid pro quo, they should just think bribe because that's exactly what it is.

To which I say no, because yo, quid pro quo is quite a blow. First of all, quid pro quo was the president's petard of choice and now he's being hoisted by it.

Heisting someone by another's petard, not only is it not as effective, it's not even an idiom.

By changing the conversation to was it bribery, was it extortion, I think that kind of waters it down because actually wasn't bribery, it was only attempted bribery and attempted extortion.

But it's very clean to say that yes, it was a quid pro quo. The ask was this for that.

And of course you have Mulvaney and others on tape saying, well, yeah, yeah, yeah, it was a quid pro quo. That's great. Why would you want to change the terrain to let them out from under that admission?

Sure, bribery, that's tempting to use if you could prove that because if you could prove bribery, well then you can't argue, oh, it's not impeachable.

I mean, Article 2, Section 4, the president, vice president, all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of trees and bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.

So if you prove bribery, all the ambiguity about what high crimes and misdemeanors means or doesn't mean out the window, but it's harder. It's harder to prove bribery. Perhaps it's extremely simple to prove the thing that's right there that Mulvaney himself admits to.

But you know, if you're deciding what you're talking about based on the latest Republican talking points, which are as we showed and played on this show, which are, well, it might have been a quid pro quo and it might have been wrong, but it's not impeachable.

...